Skip to main content

About your Search

20110701
20110731
STATION
CSPAN 6
CSPAN2 2
LANGUAGE
English 16
Search Results 0 to 15 of about 16 (some duplicates have been removed)
, reduced spending on the wars in afghanistan and iraq and through targeted cuts to mandatory spending. it doesn't raise taxes and it doesn't touch medicare, medicaid or social security. again, this is not a perfect plan. i have been on the floor many times in favor of a balanced package that includes cuts to spending, domestic, defense and mandatory, but also includes increased revenues. the reid princess plan doesn't e those goals -- the reid plan doesn't achieve those goals but i hope we will get there eventually. this is not a proposal i would have written, but i'm one of more than 100 members of the senate and more than 535 members of congress, and i don't get everything i want. none of us here in congress get everything we want. that's the nature of compromise. that's the nature of democracy, and that's why the framers of the constitution created checks and balances in government. that's why they created two chambers in congress and three branches of government, and when you're a leader in government, you just don't have the luxury of drawing a line in the sand and walking away.
down the wars in iraq and afghanistan don't count. specifically, they say that these savings are -- quote -- "a widely ridiculed accounting gimmick that breeds cynicism." unquote. yet all but three of the 43 senators who signed this letter voted for the ryan budget on may 25 this year. that budget counted the same drawdowns as almost identical in savings. so those savings were legitimate enough to secure their support for the ryan budget but not legitimate enough to secure their support for leader reid's debt ceiling compromise. and here we are on the precipice, and suddenly they've done a 180-degree turn. either these savings count or they don't. you can't have it both ways. so we are proposing exactly what republicans have been saying that they want. yet instead of accepting this deal, they're using what precious time we have left to push forward with their agenda, and it's not even their agenda. it's the tea party agenda. their radical agenda is a wolf in sheep's clothing. last night we voted down speaker boehner's plan which requires the passage of a balanced budget const
is in afghanistan, visiting the troops. the question they are asking, will they be paid if this default happens? let me put this plainly. if senator reid's plan passes as they pay down their domestic spending spree with the blood and sweat of our troops, the military will break. we have allowed ourselves to be distracted from the massive entitlement programs that are actually bankrupting the country. that stops here. the budget passed last night shrinks the government and, most importantly, holt's three years of neglect to our armed forces. thank you. now i would like to ask the gentleman from arizona -- i mean virginia, i do not know how that happened, the chairman of our readiness subcommittee. >> i think that this is an important issue. over the last several weeks we have heard a lot about the word compromise. i think that the american people realize that overlaid on that are two other words. we need to make sure that we are having common sense on whatever compromise that we have. we do not understand why it is the democratic administration constantly believes we need to compromise our national s
are in savings from pulling back from surge levels in afghanistan and iraq. a lot of concerns about the reid bill that they could never get 60 votes. what really will happen is a negotiation, a compromise that we will likely see tomorrow and it will be put on the shell of the boehner bill that still is a lie that -- that is tabled but still there and then somehow manage to get 60 votes on that one would think and send it back to the house in that form. >> sean: what is interesting about that when they send it back to the house i would assume because it was so difficult to get the republicans onboard the boehner bill, took the extra day, creating more savings and then, of course, adding the balanced budget provision late yesterday so the vote could take place today, i would assume that the speaker would lose a lot of votes and would be then on democrats to pass what would be the reid mcconnell bill. >> bret: and probably some more boehner factors in there. try to merge one would think the reid, mcconnell and boehner bills. there will not be the balanced budget amendment because democrats would not
are i savings from pulling back from surge levels in afghanistan and iraq. a lot of concerns about the reid bill that they could never get 60 votes. what really will happen is a negotiation, a compromise that we will likely see tomorrow and it will be put on the shell of the boehner bill that still is a lie that -- that is tabled but still there and then somehow manage to get 60 votes on that one would think and send it back to the house in that form. >> sean: what is interesting about that when they send it back to the house i would assume because it was so difficult to get the republicans onboard the boehner bill, took the extra day, creating more savings and then, of course, adding the balanced budget provision late yesterday so the vote could take place today, i would assume that the speaker would lose a lot of votes and would be then on democrats to pass what would be the reid mcconnell bill. >> bret: and probably some more boehner factors in there. try to merge one would think the reid, mcconnell and boehner bills. there will not be the balanced budget amendment because democ
administration. mr. courtney: starting with iraq and afghanistan wars, two wars which, again, lots of debate about whether it was in our national interest, but in any case what is not debatable is that we never paid for a penny of either one of those conflicts. the bush tax cuts, $1.8 trillion . nondefense discretionary spending, $608 billion. tarp, the wall street bailout, which a lot of people forget occurred under the last administration, a medicare drug benefit which was passed in 2005 which was never paid for, not a nickel of that benefit was ever paid for. we were either offsetting revenue or other -- with either offsetting revenue or other spending reductions. and the 2008 stimulus bill which the bush administration had presented, a lot of people don't remember the check they got sent during that time for, again, none of those expenditures were paid for and many of those expenditures such as the bush tax cuts and the iraq and afghanistan war are still recurring expenses which are still accumulating bills and debts which this country is obligated for. when the obama administration took
of questions. >> mr. speaker, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff is in afghanistan and he was asked whether soldiers will get their checks next week. how can you allow the soldiers to even wonder whether they will get paid? >> senator mcconnell and higher months -- both confident that we can come to an agreement with the white house and in this impasse. -- end this impasse. >> we could have had this bill finished early this past week. there was a bipartisan agreement between myself and the senate leaders to move the underlying bill that will be in moving to the house yesterday. the president, all he had to do was say yes and that milk -- that bill would have move quickly through both the house and senate. so we have wasted a week we did not need to waste. now we have been driven into this call the second it is time for the president to decide how we are going to get out of it. >> what gives you confidence? >> in spite of our differences, i think we are dealing with a reasonable, responsible people who want this crisis to end as quickly as possible and i am confident that we will. >>
and afghanistan, saving $1 trillion in the process. our troops in the middle east deserve our admiration and praise for so successfully carrying out their missions. we must, however, continue to press for a strategy that will bring our troops home as soon as we safely can. the reid deficit plan would find an additional $40 billion in savings by cutting fraud and abuse in tax compliance and a number of non-defense federal programs and $60 billion in other savings, including cutting unnecessary spending on agricultural subsidies and auctioning off electromagnetic spectrum that the government currently holds. finally, by cutting the government by over $2 trillion, we'll have to borrow less money than anticipated and that will save an additional $400 million -- sorry, $400 billion in projected interest costs. in total, the senate democratic plan on which we will vote would cut the deficits by $2.7 trillion over the next ten years. while senator reid's proposal would not address the tax gimmicks and loopholes throughout our tax code that help favor the well-connected, this omission does not m
and distinction in iraq and afghanistan would feel that way to draw back on the benefits that they earned. during the bush years our country spent $1.5 trillion in iraq and national defense. the turnaround in our budget picture during the bush years was remarkable. in october of 2008, cnn reported that the debt clock had run out of numbers. the debt clock actually had exceeded 13 digits that had been allotted to the clock and had to be revised. according to one report at the end of the bush term, the number of jobs in the nation increased by 2%. that's the lowest at anytime since data began to be collected seven decades ago. gross domestic product was at the lowest pace since the truman administration, and the price that america has paid for the theology that suggested during all of those years that tax cuts pay for themselves. you can't find a mainstream economist in this town today who will acknowledge that argument. and yet we hear now more tax cuts for the wealthiest americans. by the time that the bush years ended, the debt had increased to $10.6 trillion, setting a record for any administra
to die. these needs last long after the last american combat ants depart iraq and afghanistan. this motion to recommit would simply protect our veterans from any potential unintended consequence resulting from this ill-conceived bill, the so-called cut, cap and balance act. the needs of america's veterans should be one of our highest priorities and this motion will ensure that our veterans are taken care of and that they receive the benefits they have earned. let's be clear, the passage of this motion to recommit will not prevent the passage of the underlying bill. this amendment is adopted, it will be incorporated into the bill and the bill will be immediately voted upon. so though we may disagree on the bill, today we have the opportunity with this motion to recommit and my amendment to speak with one voice in support of our veterans. it is up to all of us, i urge you to vote yes on this motion to recommit. but let's make sure that if this bill as its -- passes, the cut, cap and balance and any balanced budget will not result in a reduction of veterans benefits. vote yes on
Search Results 0 to 15 of about 16 (some duplicates have been removed)